The Liberal Myth that the Rich Pay "Virtually No Taxes"

[Skull Pilot]

Why do some of you act like it was the poor that got the EITC passed through Congress?

Like the poor banded together and demanded that this legislation be passed.

Instead, it was a bene that made tax cuts for the rich more palatable.

The poor didnt ask for it but they would be even more poor if they didnt take advantage of it.

Call your Congresscritter and get them to recind the EITC.

Then the poor will really be poor but you all who object to them getting their taxes back will feel a lot better.

But what will that (elimanting the EITC) do for you?

ALL tax credits should be done away with

You do realize that if we get rid of all the shit in the tax code that we can actually reduce the tax rates don't you

Or do you see login in charging high rates then spending billions every year just to give some of it back

flat tax is the way to go. No deductions, no refunds, no income levels to be adjusted for. Make a dollar? pay .20 cent. its very simple. Want to vote for a new program or spending bill? everyone sees an increase in their taxes.
From the guy that makes 10 bucks a year to the guy that makes 10 million, same exact rate per dollar.
allow the government to spend only what it took in the previous year, that way the exact amount available is known.

I don't think it will have to be that high if we include ALL forms of income

actually, I dont think it could be that low if the country ever intends on paying of the debt.
can you imagine the social programs this country could have if the debt was gone?

If the debt was gone we shouldn't spend what we save we should give it back to the people in the form of lower taxes

 

[hangover]

Why do some of you act like it was the poor that got the EITC passed through Congress?

Like the poor banded together and demanded that this legislation be passed.

Instead, it was a bene that made tax cuts for the rich more palatable.

The poor didnt ask for it but they would be even more poor if they didnt take advantage of it.

Call your Congresscritter and get them to recind the EITC.

Then the poor will really be poor but you all who object to them getting their taxes back will feel a lot better.

But what will that (elimanting the EITC) do for you?

ALL tax credits should be done away with

You do realize that if we get rid of all the shit in the tax code that we can actually reduce the tax rates don't you

Or do you see login in charging high rates then spending billions every year just to give some of it back

flat tax is the way to go. No deductions, no refunds, no income levels to be adjusted for. Make a dollar? pay .20 cent. its very simple. Want to vote for a new program or spending bill? everyone sees an increase in their taxes.
From the guy that makes 10 bucks a year to the guy that makes 10 million, same exact rate per dollar.
allow the government to spend only what it took in the previous year, that way the exact amount available is known.

I don't think it will have to be that high if we include ALL forms of income

actually, I dont think it could be that low if the country ever intends on paying of the debt.
can you imagine the social programs this country could have if the debt was gone?

If the debt was gone we shouldn't spend what we save we should give it back to the people in the form of lower taxes

The interest on the national debt is a half trillion dollars per year. It the debt was paid off, everybody's taxes would be that much less per year, except that the republicans have neglected this country's infrastructure for so long, our roads and bridges are impassable. The road construction has not kept up with the population growth, so we have gridlock to and from work every day.

Bernie Sanders is correct about the transfer of wealth over the last thirty years going to the richest one percent. But on top of that is the $18 trillion national debt that the rich has run up on the tax payers. THE POOR DIDN'T DO IT! THERE ARE NO POOR IN CONGRESS!

33% of this country are so stupid, that they vote for republicans to give their money to the richest 1%. When Shrub gave millionaires $3 trillion tax cut welfare and added it to the national debt, I heard a stupid con say, "It's better than giving it to the poor." Complete moron.

 

[JoeNormal]

Actually, the $250 plus tax bracket was established by Reagan

So what? You think I am a fan of that big government whore?

Obama categorized 250 K earners as some of the "wealthiest"

That was the highest tax bracket at the time

It was all part of Republicans "simplifying" our tax code and creating fewer brackets
By making the higher bracket $250 plus, it enabled them to whine about how unfair a tax increase would be to those only making $250K

I'm willing to go to 50% effective rate on those making over $1 million....are you?

No the government nor anyone else has the right to take 50% of a persons income

They always had that right before....the country was better off for it

Put it this way it is immoral to steal 50% of anyone's property

Average productivity per worker has doubled since 1970 - the year that average wage increases became flat. Do you see that as theft?

 

[edthecynic]

Now, for perhaps the 6th time....who said that the rich pay 'virtually no taxes'?

Only the Right say that by taking out of context anyone who points out the fact that the "truly wealthy," like the Rockefellers, Melons, DuPontes, etc., pay little or no taxes on their billions in capital assets, and spins "truly wealthy capital billionaires" into the "rich making $250k in wages."

Last time I checked it was Obama and his minions who said people making 250K a year were rich

Obama said that was a tax increase threshold point, the Right calls them "rich."

Obama lumped 250K earners into the category of "wealthy citizens"

Nope, YOU just did.

 

[Skull Pilot]

ALL tax credits should be done away with

You do realize that if we get rid of all the shit in the tax code that we can actually reduce the tax rates don't you

Or do you see login in charging high rates then spending billions every year just to give some of it back

flat tax is the way to go. No deductions, no refunds, no income levels to be adjusted for. Make a dollar? pay .20 cent. its very simple. Want to vote for a new program or spending bill? everyone sees an increase in their taxes.
From the guy that makes 10 bucks a year to the guy that makes 10 million, same exact rate per dollar.
allow the government to spend only what it took in the previous year, that way the exact amount available is known.

I don't think it will have to be that high if we include ALL forms of income

actually, I dont think it could be that low if the country ever intends on paying of the debt.
can you imagine the social programs this country could have if the debt was gone?

If the debt was gone we shouldn't spend what we save we should give it back to the people in the form of lower taxes

The interest on the national debt is a half trillion dollars per year. It the debt was paid off, everybody's taxes would be that much less per year, except that the republicans have neglected this country's infrastructure for so long, our roads and bridges are impassable. The road construction has not kept up with the population growth, so we have gridlock to and from work every day.

Bernie Sanders is correct about the transfer of wealth over the last thirty years going to the richest one percent. But on top of that is the $18 trillion national debt that the rich has run up on the tax payers. THE POOR DIDN'T DO IT! THERE ARE NO POOR IN CONGRESS!

33% of this country are so stupid, that they vote for republicans to give their money to the richest 1%. When Shrub gave millionaires $3 trillion tax cut welfare and added it to the national debt, I heard a stupid con say, "It's better than giving it to the poor." Complete moron.

Don't give me that infrastructure crap again we already collect over 100 billion annually in gas and other taxes that are supposed to be used solely for infrastructure

Before we put one more dime into that black hole we need an accounting of where every penny of that money has gone

 

[Skull Pilot]

So what? You think I am a fan of that big government whore?

Obama categorized 250 K earners as some of the "wealthiest"

That was the highest tax bracket at the time

It was all part of Republicans "simplifying" our tax code and creating fewer brackets
By making the higher bracket $250 plus, it enabled them to whine about how unfair a tax increase would be to those only making $250K

I'm willing to go to 50% effective rate on those making over $1 million....are you?

No the government nor anyone else has the right to take 50% of a persons income

They always had that right before....the country was better off for it

Put it this way it is immoral to steal 50% of anyone's property

Average productivity per worker has doubled since 1970 - the year that average wage increases became flat. Do you see that as theft?

That increase hasn't been because the workers are so much better but rather because technology and new manufacturing processes has made it easier for unskilled labor to produce what only highly skilled people could in the past

 

[Skull Pilot]

Now, for perhaps the 6th time....who said that the rich pay 'virtually no taxes'?

Only the Right say that by taking out of context anyone who points out the fact that the "truly wealthy," like the Rockefellers, Melons, DuPontes, etc., pay little or no taxes on their billions in capital assets, and spins "truly wealthy capital billionaires" into the "rich making $250k in wages."

Last time I checked it was Obama and his minions who said people making 250K a year were rich

Obama said that was a tax increase threshold point, the Right calls them "rich."

Obama lumped 250K earners into the category of "wealthy citizens"

Nope, YOU just did.

Selective deafness huh?

 

[Norman]

Average productivity per worker has doubled since 1970 - the year that average wage increases became flat. Do you see that as theft?
Wages have increased since 1970s.

http://inequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/average-hourly-wages.png?4c9b33

"Inequality.org".

Learn to not use regressive sources:

Also, get a dictionary.

Now, there are various reasons why smaller part of the GDP is nowdays directed towards wages. Social benefits would be one of those reasons.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Can someone get the right wing corporatist apologist for the rich a dictionary and then explain to them proportionality and fairness. When someone can show me a rich person alone on an island creating wealth they may have something, till then they simply miss where wealth is created and how.

That makes zero sense, first, you aren't god and are in no position to dictate fairness. How do you determine who gets to keep what? Your analogy is flawed because if you are alone on an island there is no wealth. Money is useless.

What we need to do is get corporations out of politician's pockets and create a free market. Big business steps on small business and small business is the backbone of the economy. Or it was.

Well, at least he's willing to admit that he thinks the government's job is to decide how much we're all entitled to keep.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sorry Mike but....on factual grounds you may win this arguement. You will also win this arguement on moral grounds. But you will never win this arguement under the current conditions of politics/tax code in this country. As long as a large % of the adult population in the US pays 0 or less federal tax, they have no inclination to fight against overtaxing. The politicians have purposely set it up this way so as they have a group to pander to in elections. We both know this, and so does every lefty on this board, and good luck beating your head against the wall trying to get them to admit it; although I do appreciate your using facts in an attempt to try and get them to do so!

As the wise say...........a 10% rise in taxes on 100 dollars is 10 bucks. A 10% rise on zero taxes is still zero. Nothing from nothing means nothing to them financially, so how we gonna win that arguement on any political grounds?

And a 10% raise on a billion dollars is a hundred million. What is it you could do with 1,000,000,000 dollars that you couldn't do with 900,000,000?

"I've decided you don't need it, so I should just take it."

 

[jc456]

Mine.

It's the only fair way and in all honesty by getting rid of all deductions and tax credits etc and taxing all income from dollar one the rate could very possibly be less than the current capital gains tax

Yours isn't the one being promoted by the GOP front runners, those most likely to have a snowball's chance in hell of actually enacting it. They either carve out specific exemptions for capital gains or they get really, really vague about the topic. While being very specific about other forms of taxation.

Which tells you that capital gains isn't going to be treated the same. With the aforementioned exception of Rand Paul.

I think a fair scheme would be based on one's ability to pay. A method adopted by pretty much every 1st world nation on the planet.

why is captial gains on the table?

Why shouldn't capital gains be on the table?

The fact that we tax investment earnings at a lower rate than sweat earnings is criminal

Its not 'criminal'. Its a concrete demonstration of the wildly disproportionate power and influence of the wealthy on our law. As its one of the primary methods of earnings for the top 1%. But not for the public at large.

And given the wildly disproportionate influence of the wealthy, tax policy flagrantly favors of the methods of income that the wealthy use to generate their income: investments.

While far higher rates on methods that most everyone else uses: actual work.

and labor isn't free is it?

 

[Indeependent]

That was the highest tax bracket at the time

It was all part of Republicans "simplifying" our tax code and creating fewer brackets
By making the higher bracket $250 plus, it enabled them to whine about how unfair a tax increase would be to those only making $250K

I'm willing to go to 50% effective rate on those making over $1 million....are you?

No the government nor anyone else has the right to take 50% of a persons income

They always had that right before....the country was better off for it

Put it this way it is immoral to steal 50% of anyone's property

Average productivity per worker has doubled since 1970 - the year that average wage increases became flat. Do you see that as theft?

That increase hasn't been because the workers are so much better but rather because technology and new manufacturing processes has made it easier for unskilled labor to produce what only highly skilled people could in the past

Walmart employees are so much better because they have better cash registers?

 

[JoeNormal]

That was the highest tax bracket at the time

It was all part of Republicans "simplifying" our tax code and creating fewer brackets
By making the higher bracket $250 plus, it enabled them to whine about how unfair a tax increase would be to those only making $250K

I'm willing to go to 50% effective rate on those making over $1 million....are you?

No the government nor anyone else has the right to take 50% of a persons income

They always had that right before....the country was better off for it

Put it this way it is immoral to steal 50% of anyone's property

Average productivity per worker has doubled since 1970 - the year that average wage increases became flat. Do you see that as theft?

That increase hasn't been because the workers are so much better but rather because technology and new manufacturing processes has made it easier for unskilled labor to produce what only highly skilled people could in the past

That's always been the case. Technology has always made productivity rise but until the early 70's, wage increases kept pace. Why did wage increases flatten after that?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sorry Mike but....on factual grounds you may win this arguement. You will also win this arguement on moral grounds. But you will never win this arguement under the current conditions of politics/tax code in this country. As long as a large % of the adult population in the US pays 0 or less federal tax, they have no inclination to fight against overtaxing. The politicians have purposely set it up this way so as they have a group to pander to in elections. We both know this, and so does every lefty on this board, and good luck beating your head against the wall trying to get them to admit it; although I do appreciate your using facts in an attempt to try and get them to do so!

As the wise say...........a 10% rise in taxes on 100 dollars is 10 bucks. A 10% rise on zero taxes is still zero. Nothing from nothing means nothing to them financially, so how we gonna win that arguement on any political grounds?

he wins neither argument. and the people who pay no taxes CAN'T pay taxes because they don't have sufficient earnings or they are exempt (e.g., social security recipients or those in the military).

when people say the rich pay no taxes, they mean PROPORTIONATE TO THEIR EARNINGS.

I pay a certain percentage of income in taxes. someone who makes millions should pay the same percentage.

and multinational corporations like exxon mobile pay almost nothing.... or nothing at all.

and if someone earns their money from dividends, they should be taxed at the same rate as someone who earns the same amount as a W-2 employee or independent contractor

You have a problem with the tax code. The top percentage is around 39% on wages and salaries and raising the tax rate on dividends would stop investors from putting money in the stock market. That would not be good for the economy.

It would also devastate the investments of working people who have spent years preparing for retirement.

 

[Indeependent]

Sorry Mike but....on factual grounds you may win this arguement. You will also win this arguement on moral grounds. But you will never win this arguement under the current conditions of politics/tax code in this country. As long as a large % of the adult population in the US pays 0 or less federal tax, they have no inclination to fight against overtaxing. The politicians have purposely set it up this way so as they have a group to pander to in elections. We both know this, and so does every lefty on this board, and good luck beating your head against the wall trying to get them to admit it; although I do appreciate your using facts in an attempt to try and get them to do so!

As the wise say...........a 10% rise in taxes on 100 dollars is 10 bucks. A 10% rise on zero taxes is still zero. Nothing from nothing means nothing to them financially, so how we gonna win that arguement on any political grounds?

he wins neither argument. and the people who pay no taxes CAN'T pay taxes because they don't have sufficient earnings or they are exempt (e.g., social security recipients or those in the military).

when people say the rich pay no taxes, they mean PROPORTIONATE TO THEIR EARNINGS.

I pay a certain percentage of income in taxes. someone who makes millions should pay the same percentage.

and multinational corporations like exxon mobile pay almost nothing.... or nothing at all.

and if someone earns their money from dividends, they should be taxed at the same rate as someone who earns the same amount as a W-2 employee or independent contractor

You have a problem with the tax code. The top percentage is around 39% on wages and salaries and raising the tax rate on dividends would stop investors from putting money in the stock market. That would not be good for the economy.

It would also devastate the investments of working people who have spent years preparing for retirement.

Ain't that tough sh!t on those who didn't have to deal with a deluge of Illegals or being replaced by Indian Business Visas.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So you really want to go back to pre-Reagan tax rates?

You do realize that the lowest bracket was 14% not 10 and that if you were singlr making 45K a year you would be in the 55% bracket

Be careful what you wish for

I'm 81 years old. Back in the day anyone who made more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. The only difference I noticed was that there weren't as many privately owned ocean going yachts and private planes. Screw the people who ride the labors of others to become filthy rich...either that or use personal advantage in the stock market. 'Course there's always a chance they inherited it. In the late 1940's a corporate executive earned 12-15 times what a carpenter or plumber made. By 1970 that had changed to about 100 times as much. In 2012 a typical CEO made 550 times what an average worker made in this country. Just how much do you goddamned greedy assholes want? What will it take to satisfy you?

I worked my ass off to make what I make and wanting to keep it is not greedy

Greedy is other people saying I don't have a right to keep my own fucking money

You are a sucker for actually working for your money

The ultra wealthy use you as an example why they should not pay more in taxes

IDGAF what the so called 1% pay in taxes because in all honesty if they paid more it would not reduce my tax burden and it wouldn't mean more money in your pocket either

In case you forgot I'm a flat tax proponent so I do think we should all be paying the same rate on every dollar of income no matter what the source

How about if the ultra rich get a nice big tax cut and you get a nice big tax increase to help make up the loss of revenue.

You good with that idea?

As to your flat, fair tax. When we all have the same amount of income THEN we can all pay the same amount of tax.

That would be "fair". You good with that idea?

That would require us to believe that tax cuts must be "paid for", or that they cause a loss in revenue.

You'll excuse me if I, for one, refuse to accept ridiculous premises as the parameter for debate.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sorry Mike but....on factual grounds you may win this arguement. You will also win this arguement on moral grounds. But you will never win this arguement under the current conditions of politics/tax code in this country. As long as a large % of the adult population in the US pays 0 or less federal tax, they have no inclination to fight against overtaxing. The politicians have purposely set it up this way so as they have a group to pander to in elections. We both know this, and so does every lefty on this board, and good luck beating your head against the wall trying to get them to admit it; although I do appreciate your using facts in an attempt to try and get them to do so!

As the wise say...........a 10% rise in taxes on 100 dollars is 10 bucks. A 10% rise on zero taxes is still zero. Nothing from nothing means nothing to them financially, so how we gonna win that arguement on any political grounds?

he wins neither argument. and the people who pay no taxes CAN'T pay taxes because they don't have sufficient earnings or they are exempt (e.g., social security recipients or those in the military).

when people say the rich pay no taxes, they mean PROPORTIONATE TO THEIR EARNINGS.

I pay a certain percentage of income in taxes. someone who makes millions should pay the same percentage.

and multinational corporations like exxon mobile pay almost nothing.... or nothing at all.

and if someone earns their money from dividends, they should be taxed at the same rate as someone who earns the same amount as a W-2 employee or independent contractor

You have a problem with the tax code. The top percentage is around 39% on wages and salaries and raising the tax rate on dividends would stop investors from putting money in the stock market. That would not be good for the economy.

It would also devastate the investments of working people who have spent years preparing for retirement.

Ain't that tough sh!t on those who didn't have to deal with a deluge of Illegals or being replaced by Indian Business Visas.

So what you're saying is that you don't give a shit about ripping off old people. Gotcha.

 

[Indeependent]

No the government nor anyone else has the right to take 50% of a persons income

They always had that right before....the country was better off for it

Put it this way it is immoral to steal 50% of anyone's property

Average productivity per worker has doubled since 1970 - the year that average wage increases became flat. Do you see that as theft?

That increase hasn't been because the workers are so much better but rather because technology and new manufacturing processes has made it easier for unskilled labor to produce what only highly skilled people could in the past

That's always been the case. Technology has always made productivity rise but until the early 70's, wage increases kept pace. Why did wage increases flatten after that?

Because commercial sinks are so much more sophisticated than pre-Reagan.

 

[Indeependent]

Sorry Mike but....on factual grounds you may win this arguement. You will also win this arguement on moral grounds. But you will never win this arguement under the current conditions of politics/tax code in this country. As long as a large % of the adult population in the US pays 0 or less federal tax, they have no inclination to fight against overtaxing. The politicians have purposely set it up this way so as they have a group to pander to in elections. We both know this, and so does every lefty on this board, and good luck beating your head against the wall trying to get them to admit it; although I do appreciate your using facts in an attempt to try and get them to do so!

As the wise say...........a 10% rise in taxes on 100 dollars is 10 bucks. A 10% rise on zero taxes is still zero. Nothing from nothing means nothing to them financially, so how we gonna win that arguement on any political grounds?

he wins neither argument. and the people who pay no taxes CAN'T pay taxes because they don't have sufficient earnings or they are exempt (e.g., social security recipients or those in the military).

when people say the rich pay no taxes, they mean PROPORTIONATE TO THEIR EARNINGS.

I pay a certain percentage of income in taxes. someone who makes millions should pay the same percentage.

and multinational corporations like exxon mobile pay almost nothing.... or nothing at all.

and if someone earns their money from dividends, they should be taxed at the same rate as someone who earns the same amount as a W-2 employee or independent contractor

You have a problem with the tax code. The top percentage is around 39% on wages and salaries and raising the tax rate on dividends would stop investors from putting money in the stock market. That would not be good for the economy.

It would also devastate the investments of working people who have spent years preparing for retirement.

Ain't that tough sh!t on those who didn't have to deal with a deluge of Illegals or being replaced by Indian Business Visas.

So what you're saying is that you don't give a shit about ripping off old people. Gotcha.

You mean the myriads of old people I talk to who are THRILLED they had a steady job or career and can now watch their investments grow BECAUSE of Illegals and Business Visas.
Yeah, fvck 'em!

 

[Interpol]

Our ultra rich have seen a 528% in tax rate..........does that equate to "virtually no taxes"?

Fuck, do you even know how to read a chart? Pre-tax income among the top 0.01% has gone UP by 528% since 1960 while their tax burden has been cut in half.

And you're defending this???